The Big Sleep is truly brilliant. I’m really fascinated about the two different versions released. The 1946 version is what I was stuck with. Apparently the earlier 1945 cut has more plot explanation, but less Bacall. Slightly annoyed I was coincidentally a few hours off from watching The Big Sleep on its big anniversary, but at least everyone else gets a heads up.

Just finished watching THE NAKED KISS. Kelly, a sex worker, moves to the small town of Grantville, ready to leave her old career behind for good and begin a new chapter. She gets a job as a nurse working with handicapped children and even ends up falling in love with this local millionaire.

But there is temptation lurking behind the corners of the small town, and certain people are not who they say they are, having dark secrets of their own. When she discovers one’s horrible secret, she is moved to do the unthinkable and it ends up turning the whole town against her.

It’s a strong morality story that deals with hypocrisy, goodness, and the true nature of corruption. It takes a dark turn in the third act and, as unexpected as it is to go there, it makes for a powerful confrontation of morality—hers versus the whole town’s, and the ending makes sense but I thought it was a little sad because, after all that Kelly endured throughout the film, you want her to come out on top and it’s not in the way you would think.

Overall, it’s a great film that’s worth watching. For those who did see it, what did you think?

This is one off my favourite adventure epic movies , the casting was perfect and set designs and costumes are gorgeous .

HPL to Robert Bloch

Dec 4, 1935

From the Windowless Steeple

“I'l get a look at "Crime & Punishment" if it comes this way. Years ago I wrestled with the novel, & wouldn't mind seeing what the cinema has made of Raskolnikov & his quaint contemporaries!”

(Unnamed here but Peter Lorre starred in that film!!)

Angels with Dirty Faces (1938)

Claude Rains, Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman in Notorious 1946. What's your thoughts on this movie?

As some of you may know, and others are finding out, HP Lovecraft was a huge cinephile. His letters include over 100 films that he saw directly, as well as multiple references to “forgettable” films he had seen but not bothered to remember.

However, FREAKS (1932) was on his radar, and apparently also on the snip ✂️ 🎞️ list for censors of the era.

It’s understood that censorship happens prior to film distribution, but in the 1920s-30s there were individual censorship hurdles within particular states or even cities.

Witness:

“Rhode Island has censors or rather, the city of Providence has a single police censor—but this oversight isn't considered as meddlesome as that in some states.”

I watched the Italian Job recently, and while I can see that many films referenced the 1969 film, including the Bourne Identity, I couldn't help thinking that certain elements such as Noël Coward's role as the imprisoned crime boss and Benny Hill's role as the pervert might have been references to earlier films. Which films should I have seen?

\*\*Sunday morning movie\*\* - Jerry Lewis is the son of an ex-pro golfer, is an excellent player himself but chokes in front of spectators, so he ends up caddying for Dean Martin. Martin becomes successful and Lewis gets pushed to the side as caddies are not welcome at the high society events he now wants to attend.

Martin & Lewis were a famous double act and friends off screen as well as on. They worked well together and clearly seemed to be enjoying themselves. Martin is the straight man, smooth as can be, with that famous singing voice. Lewis is the king of slapstick, facial gurning and general silliness. Donna Reed adds some glamour and there are a few famous golfers from the time, who make cameo roles.

This was okay as a movie, but was clearly a vehicle for the stars with plot taking a back seat. Jerry Lewis had tremendous energy and had excellent comic timing in both slapstick and some of the dance routines. There was so much comedy thrown in, I felt that some of it missed the mark.

Dean Martin was classy throughout, his big moment was the song "That's amore". This was tremendous, great choreography and put a smile on my face. I was a little disappointed that Lewis joined in the singing at the end, it was a moment in the movie that didn't require that oddball intervention.

I'm not a fan of sports movies, I've honestly rarely ever seen one where the sport itself is convincing and this is no different.

Great to see these two maestros in action, I couldn't take too much of them though.

Going into this film, I was a really big fan of Streetcar Named Desire, which is one of my favorite films of all time. Also liked Kazan’s On the Waterfront and Face in the Crowd as well.

I LOVED this film until the final 30 minutes, which I felt were unsatisfying. (Again, SPOILERS!) I thought the acting and writing were fantastic, which is unsurprising since this is based of two Tennessee Williams plays. Ultimately, I feel I had a different interpretation of the film that other people did. While many others noted that Karl Malden’s character is meant to be very unlikeable, I couldn’t help but feel bad for him. Eli Wallach’s character has a big corporation behind him and has put Malden and others out of business. I felt that Malden’s character was trying to survive and I always find Karl Malden likable as an actor, despite the character’s faults. I feel his frustration and outbursts have more to do with the stress of being poor and being unable to be in bed with his wife. I felt the film lets Wallach’s character off the hook and frames Malden as the true villain, but it’s understandable to be enraged that another man has been with his wife in the home alone. And it isn’t entirely clear to me why Baby Doll wants to be with Wallach’s character when he forced her to sign an affidavit under coercion and was aggressive and a bit creepy towards her at first. For her to wait for him at the end did not seem to be a satisfying ending.

To be clear, I understand that these characters are written in a complex way, and not everything will end good for protagonists and bad for antagonists. That would be boring and unrealistic to how real life works. But many people seem to feel that Malden’s character is having his privilege challenged by the changing times and developments. While I understand this, it seems odd that the film doesn’t give as much of an exploration to Wallach’s corporate power and how the monopolization has put many poor people out of a job.

8/10

Just finished watching the film WOMEN IN THE NIGHT. Six women from different Allied nations are rounded up by the Nazis, falsely accused of their involvement in the murder of a German officer. As punishment, they are forced to entertain foreign dignitaries.

They seek to sabotage an Allied plan to develop a deadly cosmic weapon that could change the course of the world.

It’s a postwar film, said to be inspired by true stories of the horrific crimes against the brave women that did their part for the war effort, that’s part war movie/part sci-fi film (which sounds a bit weird but it somehow kinda works).

For those who saw this film, what did you think?

Hoping this is okay to post here I was going to post in history subreddits but worried I won't get an expert specifically on this subject.

This period is considered to be from *Snow White (1937)* up to 1942 when Disney started taking government money to make propaganda films.

While Snow White was somewhat financially successful, Fantasia flopped and Dumbo had to be quickly made to save the company from financial ruin. Pinocchio, now considered one of the greatest animated movies of all time, was a box office flop due to public attention to WWII.

I don't understand how these classics where animation innovation really took off (Bambi, Snow White and Fantasia are aesthetically pleasing) weren't massive financial successes in their time?

Was it competition from other studios (Warners Bros)?

Was it the public's unwillingness to buy a movie ticket for movies aimed at kids?

Disposable income was just less?

Hoping you all can give me some more context

My last review seemed to strike a nerve with some people. Oh well can’t please everyone. Not everyone is going to like everything. Again I’ll state I go into these with a completely open mind and don’t do any research until I finished watching. This was another first watch for me.

I knew a little bit about this movie going in. As in I know it was about a young white woman and an approaching middle age black man who meet and get engaged on vacation, and come home to spring it on mom and dad. I was expecting a lot of outdated point of views on racism and specifically interracial relationships. But what I got was a really smart film. Dialogue that was so far ahead of its time, that was delivered through thoughtful and passionate performances.

Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy were tremendous in their roles as the liberal minded parents, who were shocked to say the least when their daughter comes home to San Francisco to tell them, I am engaged to a black man that I just met. Joey Drayton played by Katharine Houghton was the naive, worry free, and happy go lucky daughter. She was grew up in the liberal city of San Francisco. Yes this was still during the civil rights movement but it's a far cry from the Deep South and most of the country. Her parents were staunch liberals, and Joey was raised by their black maid/cook/nanny, Tilly. But even being as "open minded" as they believed themselves to be the minute a black man was presented as their possible future son in law. There was an initial state of shock, but when Spencer Tracy finally gathers his thoughts and speaks up about his concerns. It wasn't the typical they are beneath us, or we should be with our people talk. It was more of a concern of the problems they will face in the future being mixed race. His main concern was protecting his daughter from the ugliness in the world. As a father I get that. It really was an unexpected take and I didn't expect THAT to be the focus of everyone.

Hepburn sold all of her emotions with her eyes. The shock and confusion in the beginning. Later on the love when she saw the love that they had for each other. The anger when her husband couldn't see it. Then again the happiness when Tracy makes a complete turn to support the couple. On the flip side Tracy's face said everything. It was so animated. You could watch the movie on mute and see every emotion in his expressions. His speech to close out the movie was masterfully delivered. As was every interaction he had with every male character in the movie. His character was always always respectful to Poitier's. He addressed him as a man, an equal. Not as a black man that was beneath him. Poitier being black was never a reason he wasn't good enough for his daughter. In fact Poitier being good enough for his daughter was never the issue.

I was really excited to see Poiter as Dr. Prentice. I have seen some of his work and I have always wanted to dive deeper into his roles. But for most of the movie in my opinion he didn't have much to do. He was almost a prop so all of these other characters could go through the series of emotion from shock to acceptance and everything inbetween. Then his parents fly in for dinner. The conversation Dr Prentice and his father played by Roy E Glenn had in the study was so powerful. Especially the way it cuts to Mrs. Prentice played by Beah Richards and Spencer Tracy having a parallel conversation to the one being had inside. Poitier really shines in this scene. The words hold true today. I was born to immigrant parents, the weight of my parents journey into and in America is a weight that has been thrown around my whole life. I feel like I have had this conversation many times in my life. When Portier finishes his speech with, "you see yourself as a colored man, I see myself as a man." I was in tears. Amazingly acted and amazing dialogue.

Everyone in this movie shines. My only real complaint is Joey Drayton. Her character seemed one dimensional the whole movie. Just insanely optimistic and oblivious to race relations in America. She was annoyingly positive. But she looked gorgeous while being annoyingly positive, shrug.

Tilly the maid not wanting an uppity black man snatching up the girl she raised since a baby was an interesting and accurate take. Racism and classism existed and exists in America. But classism exists in our own races and ethic groups. Again this was something I was not expecting. So many surprises.

Immediately when the two fathers agreed that the two were crazy and rushing into things, while the mothers seemed to be on the side of love. I was reminded of the meeting of the parents in Father of the Bride. I know there was a kooky comedy remake with Bernie Mac and Ashton Kutcher. But I haven't seen it and refuse to. So that all I have to say about that. All in all I love the movie. An extremely well written and masterfully acted script on a race relations set during the civil rights movement in America. I was very surprised to find the script was written by a white man, William Rose. The discussions being had were very smart, and makes me wonder what experiences he had in his life to be able to so accurately write them. Great movie would watch again. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Among the numerous films about the Titanic, I find this one to be the most comparable to James Cameron's 1997 film